Re: Evolution
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:39 pm
Evolution.Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2046
Evolution.Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.
Premature celebration.Mr. Perfect wrote:At this point we have no choice but to conclude that evolution is not science.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/africa/hu ... index.html
Quick interjection, evolutionists will always scream at me that evolution is settled science, but every time I turn around they are also proclaiming mysteries. Schizo.South Africa's Cradle of Humankind, an expanse of farmland and rolling hills outside Johannesburg, has already unlocked some of the great mysteries of evolution.
Are you ready for the kicker?The unveiling of a near-complete fossil hominid skeleton dating back 3.67 million years will only solidify the importance of the region.
"Little Foot" is the oldest fossil hominid skeleton ever found in Southern Africa, the lead scientist examining the discovery said on Wednesday.
This is game set match for the death of evolution.Some scientists have given it a far more recent place on the human evolutionary tree.
The "evolutionary trees" that we see are determined by debate and speculation of human beings, not by an independent testing process. For example we have litmus tests for pH balance, we have DNA tests to determine paternity and we use all kinds of metering to determine voltage, wattage and current. We are awash in independent tests of all kinds of physical phenomena.
Except evolution. No such tests exist.
Therefore it is not science.
Now this is not the only article that illustrates my point, it simply words it directly and simply in my favor. When you read evolution articles you will see the same thing over and over, descent is determined by speculation and arguing by a club of authorities, not independent testing.
Science is anything that conforms to the scientific method. ANything short of that is not science. Evolution fails the test in totality.
Scientific Method:
1. Observation
2. hypothesis
3. testing
Evolution:
1. There are all these species
2. They must have descended from each other
3. ---------
There is no independent testable methodology for determining descent. As such, descent itself has not been determined. Therefore, evolution is not science.
It's just tribal chieftains sitting around arguing and speculating.
Evolution is one species turning into another species. This has never been observed or determined to happen.Typhoon wrote:Evolution.Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.
Some people make that claim. I can spend the next year posting articles on "settled science"Typhoon wrote: Premature celebration.
Science is not a set of fixed collection of assertions claimed to be immutable.
True. So far evolution has not met the criteria and should not be considered science.That is dogma.
Science is an ongoing process.
Emphasis added. More cool stories.Paleoanthropology is an observational science, one uses the best information one has at a given time.
As new information is uncovered, our understanding is reviewed, debated, and updated.
The age of Little Foot is a matter of ongoing analysis and debate.
could-be[/size]-human-ancestor]Science | 'Little Foot' Fossil Could Be Human Ancestor
Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.Mr. Perfect wrote:Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species
still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.
Oops, not evolution, but breeding.In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.
Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"
And for the hat trick.
So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying."We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.
Just for fun:
When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.
I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.
Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.
Maybe this is the worst line:
Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.
you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.
the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
This is the rule of thumb for differentiating between species.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
Little influence . . . so far.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?
Except birds may be the same species and I don't know anyone who thinks any ape is the same species as a human.noddy wrote:dont see what the fuss is.
if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.
Completely subjective statement.the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.
Actually my arguments rest entirely on attention to detail, and how evolutionists never get the details right.you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.
I tend to lump "dog" together more than "bird". The dog thing is far more demonstrable (they can all interbreed despite tremendous morphological differences). I can't get a straight answer on birds.noddy wrote: other folks like mr p are prepared to lump all birds together as "bird".
It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?noddy wrote:the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
think of the shitfight over the word planet and if pluto is a planetoid or not - all those arguments, all the passion and yet pluto is still the same lump of rock circling the sun
hah, I didn't miss it. I read that article the other day, and you bumped this thread- so it was the perfect time to post it.Mr. Perfect wrote:Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.Mr. Perfect wrote:Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species
still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.
Oops, not evolution, but breeding.In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.
Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"
And for the hat trick.
So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying."We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.
Just for fun:
When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.
I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.
Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.
Maybe this is the worst line:
Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.
organisational catagories are great, according to the wikipedia their are 28 of them for species depending on your own priorities.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?noddy wrote:the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
Everyone always talks against it but, generally live by it (unless anyone reading this is of the extremely disorganized types-- ie beyond a messy desk.)
"If evolution were true, there would be DNA similarities. There are DNA similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.”
"will work" for whom? maybe not. consider the subjects you are observing.noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes.Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
as a producer of both CO2 and methane, I am guilty as charged!NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes.Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
"Even the seemingly immortal gods survive as long as they are needed by mortal man!"Parodite wrote:Ok but.. does God evolve, have an opinion? Or is he so virtual that anything goes.